Studia Prawnicze. Rozprawy i Materiały / Studies in Law: Research Papers

The article addresses the trend toward algorithmization of child support proceedings, which aims to standardize child support rates through the creation of official tariffs and the resulting simplification of the proceedings. A further step could be the introduction of  rtificial intelligence-based algorithms to assist judges in assessing the personal and financial circumstances of the parties to child support proceedings, or the complete dejudicialization of these proceedings. The research question is therefore whether this direction of change is justified and what opportunities and threats it may entail. The aim of the study is the analysis of existing legislative proposals, based on the formal-dogmatic method, as well as the possible consequences of the deepening trend of algorithmization in child support awarding, and to present de lege ferenda proposals. As a result of her deliberations, the author concludes that the trend of algorithmization in child support cases may be dangerous, as the principle of the best interests of the child would require the greatest possible individualization of decisions based on the circumstances of a specific case, rather than standardization and rigidity of payment rates based on official tariffs. Algorithmization will also not solve the fundamental problem of the low effectiveness of alimony enforcement. More equitable and more beneficial outcomes for the parties would be achieved by promoting consensual methods of resolving alimony disputes, in which alimony tariffs could serve only as a supporting tool, serving as a starting point for negotiations or mediation.

In recent years, Artificial Intelligence has gained prominence in the business sector by allowing companies to focus on their core activities while automating routine and administrative tasks. However, the excessive autonomy and lack of transparency in certain AI systems can negatively impact the fundamental rights of individuals interacting with them. A notable example is the use of AI in recruitment processes, where algorithms screen candidates for job vacancies. Poorly managed implementation may increase the risk of discriminatory outcomes. This paper aims to evaluate the impact of AI on fundamental rights in private-sector recruitment and selection processes, examining how Portuguese and European legal frameworks can protect candidates. Although both Portuguese Constitutional Law and European Law uphold the principle of non-discrimination, they are currently insufficient to address algorithmic bias. In this context, the European legislator’s adoption of the AI Act, designed to limit the potential discriminatory effects of algorithms, is particularly commendable. In order to achieve the proposed objectives, the scientific methodology adopted  in this scientific paper was a critical analysis of the state of the question, with an analytical review of the literature and doctrinal works of various authors that we have chosen for this research, and an analysis of the current Portuguese Law and European Union Law, including the current Artificial Intelligence Act, in order to draw the obvious conclusions.

The rapid growth of financial technology (FinTech) in the European Union has catalysed a complex regulatory response designed to protect consumers while sustaining digital market competition. This article undertakes a doctrinal legal analysis of the principal EU legislative instruments governing e-banking in the FinTech sector, focusing on the Payment Services Directive 2 (PSD2), the Digital Markets Act (DMA), the Digital Services Act (DSA), and the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA). The central argument is that the current EU regulatory framework, while broadly advancing consumer protection goals, generates structural tensions with FinTech innovation through overlapping compliance obligations, fragmented national implementation, and proportionality deficits that disproportionately burden smaller market participants. Through textual analysis of primary legislation, interpretation of CJEU jurisprudence in Kušionová v SMART Capital a.s. (C-34/13) and FS and WU v First Bank SA (C-593/22), and evaluation of authoritative
institutional reports, the article identifies three normative fault lines: the PSD2 and GDPR interface and its data-sharing tensions; the
gatekeeping architecture of the DMA and its competitive implications for FinTech ecosystems; and DORA’s cybersecurity mandates and their asymmetric compliance burden. The article concludes that the EU is at a normative inflection point and argues for proportionate, coherent, and forward-looking legal mechanisms capable of accommodating emerging digital finance paradigms.

This article addresses the highly topical issue of reducing the working week, which is currently a subject of legal and social discourse both in Poland and abroad. It presents the arguments of both supporters and opponents of this solution. The author raises questions regarding the negative aspects currently associated with this solution and the conclusions for Poland from a completed pilot programme. Furthermore, the aim of the article is to highlight attempts to introduce a four-day working week in Poland. The study employs the method of legal text analysis and the comparative method. Additionally, factor analysis and a description of the legal and practical measures introduced were also necessary. The article highlights the undoubted benefits associated with the introduction of a four-day working week. At the same time, the author presents the negative aspects currently associated with the proposed solution. According to the author a four-day working week in Poland is feasible only in certain professions, and its introduction into the Labour Code as a general rule is not a recommended idea.